Americans United - Kelly Shackelfordhttps://www.au.org/tags/kelly-shackelford
enSins Of Omission: When Religious Right Leaders Speak, The Whole Truth Is Often Left Behindhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sins-of-omission-when-religious-right-leaders-speak-the-whole-truth-is
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">At the Values Voter Summit, tall tales about a tall cross. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>When an individual doesn’t feel like being absolutely truthful, there are a couple of things he or she can do. One is to simply tell lies. Another, perhaps more common tactic, is to omit certain pieces of information, thus giving the listener an incomplete picture.</p><p>The latter tactic was on full display this year during the Religious Right’s “Values Voter Summit” last week, and perhaps no one used it better than a man named Kelly Shackelford.</p><p>Shackelford runs a group in Texas called the Liberty Institute. It’s yet another of these Religious Right legal outfits that labors to erode the church-state wall. During <a href="http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=PG14H07">his remarks</a>, Shackelford bemoaned the state of religious freedom in America, which means he really bemoaned the fact that aggressive fundamentalist Christians don’t have the right to use the government to shove their religion down your throat at every turn.</p><p>Shackelford focused most his remarks on a long-running lawsuit challenging the Mt. Soledad Cross near San Diego. This 43-foot-tall cross sits on government-owned land. Its supporters claim it is a war memorial. Many people feel differently and point out that a symbol of one faith can’t represent all of our veterans, who come from many different religious and philosophical backgrounds.</p><p>A cross has been at the site since 1913. When the first one was erected, no one said it was a war memorial. It was clear that the cross was erected for sectarian purposes. In 1952, strong winds knocked down the cross. It was replaced by a larger, more fortified structure, and again no one asserted it was a war memorial. In fact, cross supporters at the time said their goal was “to create a park worthy of this magnificent view, and worthy to be a setting for the symbol of Christianity.”</p><p>Remarkably, this case has been bouncing around in the courts for 25 years. Several courts have ruled that the government has no legal right to display this cross, but local, state and federal officials keep coming up with new stunts to save it. Yet through it all, one thing is clear: It was only after the lawsuit was filed that the cross suddenly became a war memorial.</p><p>Shackelford included none of this history in his comments. That’s telling. </p><p>He also opined that the entire lawsuit was a plot by atheists who oppose the public display of religious symbols. I’m not sure about the theological views of the original plaintiffs. The case has been in court so long that those plaintiffs, who were veterans of the Vietnam War, have died. If you look up the case now, you will see that it is styled <em>Jewish War Veterans of the USA v. Hagel</em>.</p><p>Hmmm. It would appear that the main plaintiffs these days are Jewish War Veterans. I wonder why Shackelford omitted that interesting piece of information?</p><p>Shackelford showed a slick video of veterans (mostly old folks) gathering at the site of the cross with tears in their eyes. There were plenty of shots of flags waving in the breeze and sunbeams coming up around the cross and all that. It was clearly designed to invoke an emotional reaction.</p><p>The video could only leave viewers with the impression that Shackelford’s group is leading the defense of the cross. That’s not quite accurate either. The cross is being defended by government attorneys. Shackelford’s Institute represents a private group that has intervened in the case, as a brief statement at the end of the video admitted. Shackelford is probably not eager to tell his donors that his Institute is <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/10/nation/la-na-nn-san-diego-cross-defended-20140410">working alongside the Obama administration</a> to defend the cross. (Shackelford also boasted that his group is the “largest legal organization in the country” focusing on these issues. That would come as a surprise to the <a href="http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>, a Religious Right legal group with a budget eight times larger than Shackelford’s Institute.)</p><p>Shackelford talked repeatedly about how awful it would be if the cross were removed. The veterans would be heart-broken! He made it sound as if the American Civil Liberties Union is standing by with a bale of dynamite waiting to blow up the cross. In fact, a much more likely scenario is that the memorial will be transferred to a private entity and left intact.</p><p>For bonus fun, Shackelford also discussed the case of Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, a conservative Christian who claims he was disciplined after he dared to disagree with his lesbian supervisor over the issue of same-sex marriage. Shackelford never bothered to point out that an internal Air Force investigation found Monk’s claims to be <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/november-2013-church-state/people-events/air-force-investigation-debunks-anti-christian">without merit</a>.</p><p>Shackelford’s recounting of the travails of Eric Walsh, former director of public health for the city of Pasadena, Calif., also left out key information. According to Shackelford, Walsh was denied a new job in Georgia merely because he spoke of his faith. In fact, Walsh, who had been moonlighting as a pastor, launched <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bad-medicine-calif-city-s-health-director-has-some-unhealthy-attitudes">crude and vitriolic attacks on gay people</a> and advocated positions (such as opposing condom distribution and even denying the reality of evolution) that could have affected public health policy.</p><p>As an attorney, Shackelford surely knows the famous courtroom admonition: You are to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.</p><p>It’s too bad he didn’t follow that at the Values Voter Summit.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kelly-shackelford">Kelly Shackelford</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/liberty-institute">Liberty Institute</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alliance-defending-freedom">Alliance Defending Freedom</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mt-soledad-cross">Mt. Soledad cross</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/phillip-monk">Phillip Monk</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/eric-walsh">Eric Walsh</a></span></div></div>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:36:52 +0000Rob Boston10541 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sins-of-omission-when-religious-right-leaders-speak-the-whole-truth-is#commentsChristmas Stories: All Too Often, Religious Right Tales Of Holiday Horror Don’t Add Uphttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/christmas-stories-all-too-often-religious-right-tales-of-holiday-horror-don
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">There’s no war on Christmas. There’s just the same old fight against fundamentalist zealots who believe their crabbed, narrow and exclusionary interpretation of Christianity is the only valid one. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Earlier this week, FoxNews.com <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/17/yes-virginia-there-reall-is-war-on-christmas/">published a column</a> by Religious Right attorney Kelly Shackelford accusing Americans United and other groups of ignoring the allegedly overwhelming evidence that there is a “war on Christmas.”</p><p>In his column, Shackelford mentioned several incidents that he insists are proof of this war. Let’s take a closer look at them, shall we?</p><p><em>* A nativity scene at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina was removed</em>: Yes, it was. And it should have been. Military bases are government installations. Government facilities don’t have the right to display religious symbols at taxpayer expense. The courts have been clear about this. If the base wanted to display a crèche, it should have included symbols of other faiths and non-religious symbols as well.</p><p><em>* The Freedom From Religion Foundation “intimidated the state of Washington into banning all holiday decorations from the Capitol building”:</em> I called my friend Andrew Seidel, an attorney at the FFRF, and asked him what really happened. He told me that this situation started in 2008, when a member of the group noticed that a nativity scene was being displayed inside the state capitol. He sought, and won, the right to put up his own display. It was a sign that read, “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”</p><p>Since then, all displays (religious and non-religious) have been moved outside the building and are erected and maintained by private groups using their own funds – which is exactly how it should be.</p><p><em>* The FFRF “bullied an Oklahoma school into banning all religious-themed Christmas songs from its ‘December Play’”:</em> This incident occurred in the town of Sulphur, Okla., last year. Officials at Sulphur Elementary School sponsored a Christmas play that included Christian themes and songs and that encouraged kids to pray. Students who objected to this religious content were sent to the principal’s office to do homework (something they regarded as a form of punishment). Parents objected. The principal promised to make certain that in the future, no students were ostracized or punished for not taking part.</p><p>Seidel called Shackelford’s description “a pretty gross misrepresentation.”</p><p>* “<em>A</em><em>ttempts to ban Christmas observances have occurred in schools in Bulloch County, Georgia, and Frisco, Texas.”:</em> The Bulloch County story <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/tis-the-season-to-tell-big-honking-lies-more-war-on-christmas-calumny-from">was debunked</a> a few days ago. It was a typical attempt by Fox News to slime a public school. The Frisco situation involved an email that was forwarded to a number of parents claiming that the school had banned the word “Christmas” and the colors red and green. The email had no connection to the school, and officials quickly issued <a href="http://www.friscoisd.org/news/2013/12/05/holidays-in-schools">a statement</a> noting that the district has no such policies in place.</p><p><em>* “A Houston-area school banned all religious items at Christmas (and students from saying the word “Jesus” at Easter!)”:</em> I’m sure that Shackelford, as an attorney, is familiar with the term “hearsay.” Where did this happen and when? What exactly was said? What was the policy? Who issued it? If it was so bad why wasn’t it challenged in court? In light of his wild distortions of the cases listed above, I doubt Shackelford has described this one accurately.</p><p>Americans United hears stories like this all of the time from Religious Right groups. They usually turn out to be complete fabrications or mischaracterizations of what really happened.</p><p>On Tuesday, my colleague Simon Brown wrote about <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-religious-right-s-nightmare-before-christmas-poll-finds-increasing">a new poll </a>showing that more and more Americans are celebrating Christmas as a secular holiday. At the same time, groups like Americans United, FFRF, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and others are insisting that the separation of church and state be respected.</p><p>Members of the Religious Right’s “Christmas Police” believe there is only one way to celebrate Christmas – their way. They want to force that theological understanding onto everyone using the power of government.</p><p>A growing number of Americans have had enough and are standing up to the Christmas Police. Among them are plenty of Christians who, unlike the Religious Right, are smart enough to realize that the place to go for a full-blown religious experience at Christmas is a house of worship, not city hall.</p><p>In short, there’s no war on Christmas. There’s just the same old fight against fundamentalist zealots who believe their crabbed, narrow and exclusionary interpretation of Christianity is the only valid one. They have taken the message of a man dedicated to peace and turned it into a hate-filled rant – and then they puzzle why so many people are repelled by it. Of course, they still insist that they have the right to hijack the power of government and shove this festering theological fruit cake down everyone else’s throat.</p><p>If that’s your gift to us, Mr. Shackelford, we’ll be taking it back.</p><p>P.S. A little advice: I know a place where you can get all of the religion you want this Christmas season. It is called “church.”</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-displays-and-holidays">Religious Displays and Holidays</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/war-christmas">war on christmas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kelly-shackelford">Kelly Shackelford</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/fox-news">Fox News</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/frisco">Frisco</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/texas">Texas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bulloch-county">Bulloch County</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/andrew-seidel">Andrew Seidel</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/freedom-religion-foundation">Freedom From Religion Foundation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/military-religous-freedom-foundation">Military Religous Freedom Foundation</a></span></div></div>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:45:56 +0000Rob Boston9358 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/christmas-stories-all-too-often-religious-right-tales-of-holiday-horror-don#commentsA Cross – The Great Divide: Justices Seem Split On Calif. Religious Symbol Casehttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-cross-%E2%80%93-the-great-divide-justices-seem-split-on-calif-religious-symbol
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It seems to me that Congress was clearly trying to find a way to keep this cross on federal land. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I spent the morning at the Supreme Court attending oral arguments in <em>Salazar v. Buono</em> – a case focusing on a cross on display in the Mojave National Preserve in California.</p>
<p>I'm not going to pretend I understand all of the ins and outs of this <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/09/a-cross-the-court-and-the.html">complex case</a> because I'm not a lawyer. I rely on AU's legal team to do that. But I did garner a few impressions from the argument.</p>
<p>First of all, it's quite possible this case will not be settled on traditional church-state grounds. In fact, there was surprisingly little talk about whether the presence of the cross in the middle of a federal preserve amounts to an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.</p>
<p>Instead, several of the justices veered off into a discussion over a land swap Congress mandated in an effort to keep the cross up. In an effort to save the cross, Congress passed a special law declaring the cross a national memorial and transferring ownership of the land to a private group, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). There was a lot of talk about how that action affected a court injunction ordering that the cross be removed.</p>
<p>Thus, it's possible the high court could decide this case on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100700171.html">narrow technical grounds</a> and perhaps even kick it back to a lower court.</p>
<p>There was also a lot of talk about whether the land transfer is legitimate. U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued the case on behalf of the federal government, insisted that if the land transfer is upheld, the federal government would no longer have anything to do with the land the cross sits on and would not be in violation of a court injunction.</p>
<p>I don't buy it – and some justices seemed skeptical as well. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out the VFW is required to keep some type of war memorial on the property, which means the government still has a stake in what happens on this land.</p>
<p>It seems to me that Congress was clearly trying to find a way to keep this cross on federal land. Its motivation was purely religious, and that alone should be enough to declare the act a violation of church-state separation.</p>
<p>Some justices did ask on-point questions about separation of church and state. Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to know if there is any other national memorial that consists solely of a religious symbol. (There is not.)</p>
<p>But on the other hand, Justice Antonin Scalia stated more than once that a cross is not necessarily a religious symbol and it can represent all veterans. He even called the claim that the cross does not represent all veterans "an outrageous conclusion."</p>
<p>Peter J. Eliasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case, had a nifty reply to that. "I've been in Jewish cemeteries," Elias said. "There is never a cross in a Jewish cemetery."</p>
<p>Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn also rebuked Scalia.</p>
<p>During a press conference on the portico of the Supreme Court after the argument, Lynn said, "The cross in Mojave Reserve has no historic significance, it has no secular significance; it is a powerful symbol of the dominant religion in this country and, as such, it has no business being in the Mojave Preserve.</p>
<p>"There is not one reasonable person," he continued, "who drives on those roads and sees this cross on one acre who doesn't think that that acre is controlled -- like the 1.6 million other acres -- by the federal government for people of all faiths, no faiths and people of all ideological persuasions."</p>
<p>At the end of the hour, both attorneys had been thoroughly grilled, with every justice asking at least one question (expect Clarence Thomas, of course). Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the newest member of the court, was an active participant, and while it's always dangerous to read too much into questions from the bench, I'm hopeful she's leaning our way.</p>
<p>I caught up with several other AU staffers outside the court after the argument. Americans United did a friend-of-the-court <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/08/salazar-brief.pdf">brief </a>in the case, and Barry was taking questions from the media. It was interesting to listen in on the different conversations going on as various observers tried to guess what the court may do with this case.</p>
<p>[caption id="attachment_2188" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Barry Lynn, center, speaking at the Supreme Court. At left, NPR's Nina Totenberg, and at right, NBC's Pete Williams. (Photo by Maria Matveeva)"]<a href="http://blog.au.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/img_3669-barry-lynn_800px.jpg"></a>[/caption]</p>
<p>I overheard one especially interesting tidbit: Religious Right groups have been insisting that if the ACLU wins this case, it will open the door to attacks on grave sites at places like Arlington National Cemetery. It's an offensive argument and one anchored in fear-mongering.</p>
<p>Groups like the ACLU and Americans United support the right of families to choose any religious symbol for a private grave site. Americans United even <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2007/06/pentacle-quest-s.html">went to court</a> on behalf of the family of a Wiccan solider to defend this right.</p>
<p>Asked about this issue, attorney Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute, a group that represents veterans in this case, finally admitted that it's not likely to happen.</p>
<p>So what's next?</p>
<p>The Supreme Court will issue its ruling sometime before the end of June, so stay tuned.</p>
<p>P.S.: Barry Lynn will be discussing the case on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" this evening at 7 p.m. Eastern time. Tune in if you can.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions-outside-schools">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions (outside schools)</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antonin-scalia">Antonin Scalia</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/courts">In the Courts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kelly-shackelford">Kelly Shackelford</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mojave-desert">Mojave Desert</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-symbols">religious symbols</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/salazar-v-buono">Salazar v. Buono</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a></span></div></div>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:01:34 +0000Rob Boston2027 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-cross-%E2%80%93-the-great-divide-justices-seem-split-on-calif-religious-symbol#comments